Posted on 10/13/2006 4:57:44 PM PDT by fanfan
She looks like a Granny.....
British Airways has embraced political correctness with a veangance.
"And it will continie (sic), because we don't kill people like Muslims do to force their way on others.
Appeasement is our way."
I think the day is coming when you will see Christians and Jews pushing back. Do I know when that day will be? No, but I'd bet it is sooner than one might think.
Great Britain is swirling in the bowl.
<< IMO, the fact that she is fighting this, and getting public support suggests to me that the British have reached their limit.
I say "Good on 'em!
The fighting spirit has started to stir. >>
If such were true it would be the answer, for me, of at least forty years of prayer.
Sadly though, the evidence is that the Brits were never better represented than at Munich by Chamberlain. Most certainly not by the aberration that was the essentially-American, Churchill.
Not even by their sorry post-war parade of blithering idiots, twits, traitors, economics illiterates, cowards, Keynesians and socialists: Atlee, McMillan, Eden, Wilson, Home, Heath, Callaghan, Blair et al.
Neo-Axis co-founder, Blair, the al-Qeada-allied co-creator of the Euro-peon Neo-Soviet's very own islamanazi/gangster state, has been kept in office years past his use-by date by those to damned stupid to know they're being lied to and/or too damned mean-spirited and greedy to care. (By "ordinary" Brits, that is)
Even the much-vaunted Thatcher, whose in-the-end only lasting legacy is to have been female, is on that list. The real Thatcher, that is, whose every "policy" and every "conservative" successor has been tossed out by the British electorate (and/or has been thoroughly repudiated and/or corrupted, twisted and adapted by Blair and his fellow clipped-vowel-elitist totalitarian wannabes) and who cowardly attacked the Falklands, not Buenos Aires, when the latter's leaders invaded the former:
(Japs attack Pearl Harbor! Roosevelt heads for Hilo!! Hooray!!)
The Thatcher who thus presided over Britain's total humiliation at the hands of the all-powerful Argentines also even more definitively cravenly and for no more visible incentive and/or motivation than the considerable fortunes offered her cabinet and her family members by the Peking predators and accepted by several, surrendered once FRee British Hong Kong (As mush Sovereign British as is the land upon which stands the Westminster Parliament!) and its 7.5 million once FRee British Hong Kong Citizens and all of their wealth, to "china."
But I'll ignore the overwhelming evidence that the Limeys, along with the Christianity that once (a hundred years ago and more) at least offered some of them the strength of character and the courage to emigrate and the rest of them at least a glimmer of hope, have since surrendered their sovereignty to Brussels, to Strasbourg and to Sharia. And that, since having long ago having spiraled into post-Christian/post-modernist pagan-heathen/panthiest moral relativism, have even-further descended into dissolution, degradation, degeneration, disintegration and decay, into the craven appeasement of every evil -- and into bothersome bovver-booted Bush-Derangement-driven bullyboy rage!
And will keep Right on praying.
(Thank You, Dear Lord. Amen)
Blessings - Brian
"The Thatcher who thus presided over Britain's total humiliation at the hands of the all-powerful Argentines"
Yeah, that's what happened. You're cracked. I'de reply to your other points, if I could actually work out what they were.
<< Yeah, that's what happened. >>
It is.
Congratulations.
You're Right on the average.
One Right out of ten is about average for "you lot."
[Another clue: (The Pearl Harbor/Hilo analogy having flown over your head) When Hitler headed for Prague, that era's Limeys didn't respond by invading Czechoslovakia!]
So, the fact seems to have escaped you that the Argentine Army was comprehensively routed in what is universely recognised as a stunning military achievment, overrunning enemy positions that were prepared and dug in, in harsh conditions and terrain, at the end of an 8000 mile long supply line, and the regime that sanctioned the invasion was overthrown a short while later.
Apparantly, by your logic, that makes the Argentines 'all-powerful' and constitutes a total humiliation for the British.
No, we didn't have the resources to invade the Argentine mainland, not that it was either necesary or politically desirable. You also overlook the fact that Thatcher did this in the face of less than 100% American support and had to give Reagan a lesson on what was at stake in the face of his attempt to broker a ceasefire to save face for the Argentines.
At least try to get some factual basis into your obvious anti-British trolling.
<< "No, we didn't .... invade the Argentine mainland, not that it was either "necesary" (sic) or "politically desirable" .... >>
".... Or achievable, given that we were by then a long-ago-miserably-failed socialist state and focussed more on such secondary considerations as providing "free" eye glasses, cheap false teeth and abysmal Paki-provided "health care" to indolent geezers and other dole bludgers than on the defense of our once proud one-time First Class Nation. Which defense we had long since shrugged off to the envied, loathed, despised and, bloody ingrates that we are, neither acknowledged nor thanked Americans, to whose blood and treasure we had, since 1917, owed all that, any more, passed for our freedoms -- and had long since lost any of the resolve, the courage or the means to deliver the Argentines, where they bloody live, the bloody hiding their contemptuous Falking with our Islands so richly deserved!"
And although our help down there wasn't particularly overt, it was essential -- and it worked.
Cheers, Old Cobber -- BA
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.